Judge Andrew Napolitano Q&A Part 2 of 2

Judge Andrew Napolitano gives a speech from the heart about freedom and from where our rights come. The Judge explains the hard core truth about the Constitution and why we must fight to regain and retain our freedoms. Courtesy of www.CampaignForLiberty.com. Edited by FreeTheNation.com
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, Tom Woods, Andrew Napolitano and Daniel Hannan are the new FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Judge Andrew Napolitano
• Bill of Rights
• Freedom
• Free The Nation
• Jefferson
• Constitution
• PATRIOT ACT
• Rights
• Ron Paul
• Civil Rights
• First Amendment
• second amendment
• 4th amendment
• 5th amendment

[dhedricks]

FreeTheNation, thank you for posting these sections of his speech. I am wondering about the 1st Q&A also? Who was he referring to as the "worst US President ever"? LOL I hope he can get people to wake up that if you jump Dem or Rep you are choosing your evil. Choose the Constitution and representatives willing to uphold it!

[FreeTheNation]

@dhedricks -

I believe he is referring to Abraham Lincoln as the worst ever President. The Judge HATES Lincoln for what he did to the United States and the Constitution. Many Libertarians feel that slavery could have been ended by economic measures and not with the loss of over 600,000 American Lives and the destruction of our country and our Constitution. Many constitutional experts feel that the 14th Amendment was never ratified and that it created a constitution within a constitution

[FreeTheNation]

dhedricks -

Many Libertarians believe that the slaves could have been purchased for a FRACTION of the price of the war and set free. It's interesting to note that African slaves were freed all over the world, with non-violent measures. Even Lincoln stated that the slave issue had NOTHING to do with the matter. It's not my field of expertise. However, I have found proof that the 14th Amendement was never properly ratified..going back to a US News and world report from the 50s

[FreeTheNation]

@dhedricks -

I'll conclude with MY OPINION of the worst ever american President. FDR.

In my honest Opinion, Roosevelt was one of the most horrible men to EVER be in power of ANY country. He Destroyed America, He was a CRIMINAL and he should have been put in prison for his crimes. He tried to bribe and coerce supreme court judges, he punished children of Republicans by forbidding them aid, he was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE PERSON...

I hope he is Rotting in HELL for what he did to this country

[TheASEmaster]

@FreeTheNation Or maybe Woodrow Wilson

[FreeTheNation]

@TheASEmaster

Yeah....He's on the top 2 for me, personally.

I am less educated on Wilson than FDR....

[NSResponder]

I'd love to see him run for President, too. Ron's not likely to run again.

-jcr

[bjarnet3]

Paul/Schiff 2012"

[christo930]

@etsneroj Lets hope the supreme court does better later on when there are new justices

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Basically, I agree with you. Congress has read it so broadly that its virtually no limitation on Congress at all. That said, the more you read the cases, the more you realize that the limitations of the commerce clause are not clear. They are ambiguous. That's why the courts have struggled to find a sustainable consensus on the issue. The Obamacare case currently before the Court is likely to make some waves in this regard.

[christo930]

@etsneroj It's not commerce, it's regulate, which meant something completely different and the intention was clear (then) that it was to keep states from erecting barriers like tariffs. Under the current use of the commerce clause, the fed gov can regulate ANYTHING for ANY reason. If you were to paint your house, the fed gov could come in and regulate you and say that you are indirectly affecting interstate commerce. There is no "direct" interstate commerce to produce and consume locally.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Maybe if I were a supreme court justice, but as a lower court judge I'd be bound by prior cases in which the constitutionaly of federal drug laws has been upheld. Like the pending Obamacare case, one of the key issues is whether Congress can use its authority to regulate "commerce" to ban substances. The difficulty is that "commerce" can be read narrowly or expansively, and Congress has relied on it for so long to justify so many statutes, that it is hard to reverse.

[christo930]

@etsneroj Fair enough. Would you, if you were a Judge on a court that could overturn the federal law as unconstitutional, would you do it?

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I'm all for ending "the war on drugs" and I don't have a problem with state "medical marijuana" laws as a policy matter. As a legal matter, though, they are unconstitutional because they conflict with federal law. That said, if there were a referendum, I'd vote for legalization.

[christo930]

@etsneroj Well, any way that we can end this horrific war on drugs is OK with me. Medical marijuana is now legal in a number of states and the fed gov is throwing sick people in prison because of this. If the states decide that they are simply not going to enforce the drug laws, the fed would have to give up. TBH, I don't think there is a baby in the war in drugs, it's all just dirty bath water.

[etsneroj]

@christo930, Their responsibilities were always the same, but it wasn't until 1803 with the case of Marbury v Madison that the Court held that the court's task of reviewing the constitutionality of challenged statutes followed necessarily from Art. III. Jury nullification is interesting (haven't given it much thought). State nullification is a dangerous idea: a classic example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[christo930]

@etsneroj What was their original (pre-1803) responsibilities as it was set up in the constitution? Do you not believe in concepts of Jury or state nullification?

[etsneroj]

@christo930, I am a lawyer and you are mistaken. The president nominates them, the Senate ratifes the nomination, and then they have life tenure with no obligation to ever appease any person or political constituency. That is why they are so independent. One of their main tasks, recognized since 1803, is to decide the constitutionality of state and federal laws when they are challenged in actual cases. Right now they are deciding whether Congress had the authority to enact "Obamacare."